Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

MADHU LIMAYE AND ANR. versus VED MURTI & ORS.

Decided
10 September 1970
Judges listed
M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.M. SHELAT, VISHISHTHA BHARGAVA, G.K. MITTER, C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM, A.N. RAY, I.D. DUA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)

Citations

Official
[1971] 2 S.C.R. 145 · 1970 INSC 181

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Mr. Raj Narain yesterday insisted on arguing in Hindi. He was heard for sometime with a view to see whether we could f~llow him, si~~ly because this is a habeas petition involving the liberty of the c1tmm. Because of the importance of the case we heard him for sometime, but the Attorney-General, Mr. Daphtary who is opposing him and some of the members ot. the Bench could n?t unde!Jitand the :u~ents made in Hindi yesterday. In these circumstances, it is futtle to permit Mr. Raj Narain to continue his argumemlts in Hindi. He has a counsel Mr. D. P. Singh already attendance and helping him. We suggested the following three alternatives, (a) that he may argue in English; or (b) he may ·allow his counsel to preSQll( his case; or

pp. 145–146, margin G

( c) he may give his written arguments in English.

p. 146

The language of ws Court is English (see Art. 348 of the Constitution). If Mr. Raj Narain is not agreeable to these sugges. tions, and we understand, he is not, the only alternative for us to ca.nee! his intervention. We order accordingly. G.C.

p. 146